Universal #1622

Legacy number: 1622

 Number  1618
 Original  The implicational hierarchy of semantic distinctions for possessive classifier systems:
The primary distinction in possessive classifier systems is between edible and other possessed items.
Edibles are secondarily divided into edible vs. potable;
a tertiary categorization can be based on manner of eating (edible, potable, chewable, etc.): Manner of Ingestion > State of food.
The first distinction to appear with nonedibles is valued vs. nonvalued possession;
further distinctions are made according to how the possessed item is intended to be used:
shelter, vehicle, clothing, body ornaments, mats, etc.: Value > Purpose/Function.
 Standardized  IF there are classifiers for edible possessed items, THEN there are for nonedible ones, and vice versa.
For the edible class:
IF a possessive classifier system distinguishes objects by state of food, THEN it also distinguishes them by manner of ingestion.

For the nonedible class:
IF a possessive classifier system distinguishes objects by purpose or function, THEN it also distinguishes them by value.
 Formula  Edible: Manner of Ingestion, State of Food;
Nonedible : Value, Purpose/Function
 Keywords  possessive classifier<br>
 Domain  inflection, syntax, semantics
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute?
 Basis  classifier languages and relevant literature analyzed by Croft 1994
 Source  Croft 1994: 155, based on the research on Oceanic classifiers by Lichtenberk 1983

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
Lichtenberk’s observations are restricted to a single genetic family. However, possessive classifier systems have been reported for several American Indian languages, and a comparison of those systems with the Oceanic ones reveals that the semantic distinctions used are the same. (Croft 1994: 155)
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
Lichtenberk's observations are restricted to a single genetic family. However, possessive classifier systems have been reported for several American Indian languages, and a comparison of those systems with the Oceanic ones reveals that the semantic distinctions used are the same. (Croft 1994: 155)